Am I the only one who doesn't take everything Greg says as a personal attack? Half the time I don't even think hes being serious, just making light hearted jokes about how ridiculous we all can be here at DW.

At any rate, Malcolm, is it appropriate to consider Rigpa the dynamic manifest potential of awareness and hence this is why it has many names? Since knowledge of the true nature of mind itself increases ones potential not only to further realize it, but to further manifest it, it seems that Rigpa is the "powerhouse" behind further subsequent realization and also that which shines its knowledge on others in order to help lead them on the path. It seems that it is the crux through which realization is further realized and through which it is further expanded into ones external reality for the benefit of all beings.

As analogy, Rigpa is like the Sun in the Sky of Dharmata? Shining its light equally on all things and on the nature of awareness itself? (Since in reality we cannot see the sky without the Sun, its the suns light that makes the blue sky apparent).

gregkavarnos wrote:Just got back from watching a two hour documentary which comprised of interviews with women that were active in the Greek resistance movement (against the Nazi occupation) during and after WWII. Torture, betrayals, executions, beatings, starvation, exile, etc... of women whose age (during the time of the resistance) averaged between 12-30. After hearing their accounts (most of the women are in their late 60's to early 70's now, little old women who, if you saw them walking down the street, you would never imagine...) all this seems, well... really, unbelievably, like completely... pointless and lacking any essence. So sorry for the attitude.

If it seems pointless to you, and to be important to others... why not just move on and read threads that you think are more substantial? Nothing is mandating that you read every thread that you disagree with. The debate between gradual approaches and Dzogchen has occupied the best minds of countless generations of the brightest minds in Tibet. If Dzogchen and Mahamudra really only required "pointing out for you to get it" we wouldn't be having this conversation, but because that is true for only very few, there is the path. That path is different between Mahamudra and Dzogchen in important respects and we gain nothing by blurring the distinction. That distinction was not blurred in the life story of Milarepa, nor in the presentation of any of the important texts of either approach.

As to whether I was being ironic, why I simply don't know the meaning of the word.

gregkavarnos wrote: ... Or we can get all anally retentive about it, and split hairs all day about what is (or is not) mind , whether Mahamudra is Dzogchen, whether they differ in terms of practice or not, whether we are talking about ground or sutra mahamudra, etc... and clutter up yet another thread with the same old boring endless repetive and essentially useless distracting discussion (ie views) since Dzogchen/Mahamudra essentially only requires pointing out for you to get it, and verything else is just (more) verbal flatulance.

I do understand that for some this kind of discussion is boring ... but then there is no necessity to interfere into approaches that do not fit your own understanding. This kind of "only negative" interference has only brought dissension in the (recent) past.

Sönam

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.- Longchen Rabjam -

Clarence wrote:When you stop being a punk I will tell you what it did for my practice.

Well, if it hasn't stopped you from imposing conditions on assisting others to be liberated, then, realistically, it can't have done much for your practice really... So please feel free to keep it to yourself. Thanks for the offer though.

I further hope your moderation sabbatical lasts until you reach Buddhahood.

Sönam wrote:I do understand that for some this kind of discussion is boring ... but then there is no necessity to interfere into approaches that do not fit your own understanding. This kind of "only negative" interference has only brought dissension in the (recent) past.

Sönam

My dear Sonam, as you know very well know (and others here have argued before), realisation has nothing to do with understanding.

I received a profound (for this fool) teaching this year which came straight from the mouth of my teachers teacher (Lama Gendun Rinpoche) which goes something like this:

Whenever engaging (or about to engage) in discriminatory and dualistic intellectualisation one must analyse their importance/validity on the basis of three criteria (ie whether they are):

Clarence wrote:When you stop being a punk I will tell you what it did for my practice.

Well, if it hasn't stopped you from imposing conditions on assisting others to be liberated, then, realistically, it can't have done much for your practice really... So please feel free to keep it to yourself. Thanks for the offer though.

Glad to see you think sharing about my practice will assist you in your liberation. I have always been told not to share that information which is why I don't. Also, I wouldn't share that information with you because I don't like the way you conduct yourself on this forum and consider you a troll. Nowhere does it say we have to share our experience with whomever asks. Maybe your teachers teach that but I doubt it. But, let's put that to the test and see what you are willing to share about your experience/realization...

gregkavarnos wrote:Whenever engaging (or about to engage) in discriminatory and dualistic intellectualisation one must analyse their importance/validity on the basis of three criteria (ie whether they are):

gregkavarnos wrote:...all this seems, well... really, unbelievably, like completely... pointless and lacking any essence. So sorry for the attitude.

The suffering of samsara is horrible.

Actually understanding what the term "rig pa" means is important for those who wish to end their suffering, since all Dharma paths, both Hindu and Buddhist, define the cause of suffering as ignorance (avidyā, ma rig pa) and the cause of liberation as knowledge (vidyā, rig pa).

Understanding the distinction between Mahāmudra and Dzogchen is important for those who wish to follow one path versus the other, for whatever their personal reasons may be. For others the distinction may not be important.

Does it sound reasonable to ask a moderator to step in and remove the recent personal stuff, just leaving the comments that are about the teachings, practice, and topic? This is a quite an interesting thread with so many good contributors, it seems a shame to muddy the waters with things that are not about the discussion underway.

Barney Fife wrote:Does it sound reasonable to ask a moderator to step in and remove the recent personal stuff, just leaving the comments that are about the teachings, practice, and topic? This is a quite an interesting thread with so many good contributors, it seems a shame to muddy the waters with things that are not about the discussion underway.

thanks,

b.f.

Or not. Washing your hands of blood doesn't alter what has been done. Nor does removing such posts add value, if anything it makes it so that people who act out are rewarded for acting out by having their embarrassing and disgraceful acts removed from public view, where they intentionally put them in the first place. That is my approach though, and I'm certainly not fit to be a moderator

As far as personal stuff, I really think that people should consider that their views and opinions of what other people say is entirely that, a personal opinion. We are surrounded by people whose views and actions are different from our own. We can either attach to them, judge them, and waste our time and energy. Or we can try to see the good in them and what they have to offer that is positive.

Both Malcolm and Greg are right in their own respects, so why attempt to define absolutes? On a diverse forum, for some people, investigating these questions is of benefit. For other people, it will be a useless distraction. It depends on where you are at presently, and not on some objective, universal standard. Its my opinion that if we try to see the value of all contributions, we will be better off for it, rather than only seeing our own world view and trying to tear down any view that doesn't agree with our own. I am not accusing anyone of actually doing this, but in my personal view this is what often happens and why these threads spiral out of control. There is really no need for it at all.

The onus is on us as individuals to learn to accept the differences of others without generating animosity and discord. If we don't do this, or refuse to, then we have a lot to learn still about equanimity. We can't rely on others to modify their behavior to suit our own perceptions. This is again just my personal opinion though, but taking this view personally makes my interactions with others far less stressful especially during discussions about topics that can get heated.

Thank you wisdom, good guidelines. I'm new here and learning the ropes.

Thanks also Malcolm. Malcolm wrote:

Rig pa is not the nature of the mind.

and,

The term "sems nyid" is the term translated as the "nature of the mind".

Rig pa is knowledge of your primordial state.

They are not the same thing.

Not sure if this is what Malcolm is hinting at, but I have heard that "mind nature" can be used in Sutra, Tantra, and Dzogchen to refer to "seeing the empty essence of the mind", like experiencing emptiness free of thoughts. And that in Dzogchen, awareness/rigpa refers to the awareness to be recognized within that experience of seeing the empty essence. So maybe, when that empty awareness is recognized, one experiences the primordial state, which is taught to be the base of primordial purity. It seems like that means that one recognizes one's primordial state as the inseparability of the empty expanse of space/ying/dhatu and awareness/rigpa/vidya? As inseparable expanse and awareness?It seems like Tantra Mahamudra has a primordial state teaching when they refer to the innate mind or the co-emergent mind that first arises spontaneously through completion stage yogas, but it seems like Dzogchen maybe has some special unique insights into that primordial state.Probably have not understood this properly or thoroughly, though, in case anyone wants to clarify.

Barney Fife wrote:Not sure if this is what Malcolm is hinting at, but I have heard that "mind nature" can be used in Sutra, Tantra, and Dzogchen to refer to "seeing the empty essence of the mind", like experiencing emptiness free of thoughts.

The nature of mind is the inseparability of emptiness and clarity. A state free of thought is simply resting in clarity. Clarity must be recognized as empty for recognition of the mind's nature to occur. Otherwise clarity alone is merely the neutral indeterminate cognizance of the ālaya.

Barney Fife wrote: And that in Dzogchen, awareness/rigpa refers to the awareness to be recognized within that experience of seeing the empty essence.

Rigpa i.e. vidyā, is knowledge of primordial wisdom [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes], which is the three kāyas.

Barney Fife wrote: So maybe, when that is recognized, one experiences the primordial state, which is taught to be the base of primordial purity,

Primordial purity is ka dag, which is one of the three wisdoms of primordial wisdom.

Barney Fife wrote: meaning that one recognizes one's primordial state as the inseparability of the empty expanse of space/ying/dhatu and awareness/rigpa/vidya? Inseparable expanse and awareness?

You're sort of associating a lot of terms that aren't necessarily related or relevant. But 'space' is a term used in various ways depending on context. Space is sometimes used as a metaphor for awakened wisdom or emptiness. It's also sometimes used to translate the Tibetan word 'klong' i.e. long, as in 'longde' [klong sde]. Long is really a term that doesn't translate all to well... it's meant to relate to vidyā. 'Space of vidyā', 'expanse of vidyā'. Longchen Rabjam for example means something like 'All encompassing vast expanse [of vidyā]'.

At any rate though many of those terms have different meanings.

Barney Fife wrote: It seems like Tantra Mahamudra has a primordial state teaching when they refer to the innate mind or the co-emergent mind that first arises spontaneously through completion stage yogas, but it seems like Dzogchen maybe has some special unique insights into that primordial state.Probably have not understood this properly or thoroughly, though, in case anyone wants to clarify.

Thanks,

b.f.

The different systems are just different paths. Generation/completion stage Mahāmudrā, formless Mahāmudrā and Dzogchen only differ in praxis and methodology.

Some may argue that only Dzogchen allows for a result that is nondual ka dag and lhun grub, but I'm sure that's going to depend on who you ask.

The nature of mind is the inseparability of emptiness and clarity. A state free of thought is simply resting in clarity. Clarity must be recognized as empty for recognition of the mind's nature to occur. Otherwise clarity alone is merely the neutral indeterminate cognizance of the ālaya.